Study leave is not a matter of right and its grant is dependent on organizational needs and statutory criteria.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. This petition was filed, impugning the order dated 8th August, 2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, of dismissal of OA No.41/2019 preferred by the petitioner impugning the inaction of the respondents in the matter of application of the petitioner for grant of study leave, and seeking a direction to the respondents to grant study leave with pay, to the petitioner, w.e.f. 21st December, 2018, with all other consequential benefits.

2. The petition came up first before this Court on 2nd July, 2020 and thereafter on 16th July, 2020, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder. However there is no explanation, why the rejoinder has not been filed till now. Even otherwise, considering that the petition impugns the order of CAT, which has to be judicially reviewed on the basis of the material before the CAT, the need for replicating the pleadings in this writ petition is not felt. We have heard the counsels.

3. The undisputed facts are, (a) that the petitioner is employed as a Staff Nurse with the respondents Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Hospital; (b) the petitioner, on 26th July, 2018 applied to ESIC, stating that she had completed nine years of service and wanted to apply for higher study of M.Sc. (Nursing) Course of two years, at Rohtak, and sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) Cum Experience Certificate and Study Leave; and, (c) though the petitioner was furnished the NOC Cum Experience Certificate for appearing in the entrance examination but the study leave sought by the petitioner was rejected vide Memorandum dated 1st November, 2018, reasoning that "the course being applied for is not a requirement for the job being performed". Impugning the said Memorandum dated 1st November, 2018, the OA aforesaid before CAT was preferred.

4. CAT, in the impugned order, has found/observed/held, that (i) the respondents were permitting the petitioner to pursue higher studies but pursuing the higher studies by mandatorily allowing the petitioner study leave, was an issue which was well within the domain of the authorities to decide, having regard to the functional requirement of the organisation and impact of the said higher studies in the functional improvement or definite advantage in the respondent organisation; (ii) no employee can be allowed to claim study leave as a matter of right; (iii) there was not a single post for which M.Sc. (Nursing) qualification was required mandatorily and as such M.Sc. (Nursing) qualification does not provide definite advantage to the respondents ESIC and which is a essential criteria for granting study leave, as per Rule 50(3) of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (Rules); (iv) Rule 7 of the said Rules provides that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (v) Rule 50(3) thereof provides that:

"(3) Study leave shall not be granted unless-

(i) It is certified by the authority competent to grant leave that the proposed course of study or training shall be of definite advantage from the point of view of public interest;

(ii) It is for prosecution of studies in subjects other than academic or literary subject.";

(vi) grant of study leave is subject to the exigency of public service and must have direct and close connection with the sphere of applicant's duty; (vii) the rule aforesaid mandatorily requires the competent authority to certify that the proposed course of